Summary Report
Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel Meeting
April 18-19, 2012
Charleston, SC
The Snapper Grouper Advisory Panel (AP) met in Charleston on Wednesday, April 18, and Thursday, April 19, 2012 to discuss two main items: possible Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for speckled hind and warsaw grouper and Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B (golden tilefish). In addition the AP held elections for Chair and Vice-Chair and discussed a few items under Other Business. Below is a summary of the AP’s motions and recommendations:

Marine Protected Areas for Speckled Hind and Warsaw Grouper

The AP discussed the importance of clear transit provisions for any future MPAs. Additionally, the AP discussed the inability to transit through the Oculina Experimental Closed Area. The motion below pertains to the latter:
MOTION: AP RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL ALLOW TRANSIT IN THE OCULINA BANK AND BE CONSISTENT WITH TRANSIT PROVISIONS FOR ALL MPAs APPROVED BY AP

The AP spent a considerable time discussing the possibility of MPAs designed to curb bycatch mortality of speckled hind and warsaw grouper.

The AP made the following motions pertaining to this issue:

MOTION: COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER A SMALL SCALE EXPERIMENTAL FISHERY FOR SPECKLED HIND AND WARSAW GROUPER AND REQUEST THAT HARVEST BE CONDUCTED BY FISHERMEN AND SAMPLING BE DONE BY NMFS OR DNRAGENCIES.
MOTION FAILS

MOTION: COUNCIL SHOULD APPROACH THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND REQUEST THAT HARVEST OF WARSAW GROUPER IN FLORIDA STATE (ATLANTIC) WATERS BE PROHIBITED
APPROVED BY AP (1 OPPOSED)

MOTION: AP SUPPORTS THE COUNCIL’S EFFORT TO FURTHER IDENTIFY AND EXPAND EFH AND HAPC FOR SPECKLED HIND AND WARSAW GROUPER AS A BASIS FOR POTENTIAL MPA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
APPROVED BY AP (1 OPPOSED)

MOTION: REQUEST THAT RESEARCH TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF EXISTING MPAs ON SPECKLED HIND AND WARSAW GROUPER BE UNDERTAKEN
APPROVED BY AP (1 OPPOSED)

MOTION: SUGGEST TO THE COUNCIL THAT VMS BE MANDATORY FOR ANY VESSEL (COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL) HARVESTING FISH IN SA WATERS
APPROVED BY AP (3 OPPOSED)

MOTION: COUNCIL SHOULD REQUEST THAT ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING MPAs BE STEPPED UP AND VERIFIED
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: REQUEST THAT COUNCIL INCLUDE AN ACTION IN CE-BA 3 THAT REQUIRES AN EVALUATION AND ENFORCEMENT PLAN FOR ALL MPAs IMPLEMENTED AND MODIFIED THROUGH CE-BA 3 AND INCLUDE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH DATA TO PUT TOGETHER WELL-PLANNED MPAs. THE MPAs IN CE-BA 3 SHOULD BE DEVELOPED WITH SUNSET PROVISIONS WHICH WILL EFFECTIVELY REQUIRE SCIENTISTS AND POLICY-MAKERS TO REVISIT THE NEED FOR THE MPAs, REVIEW THE RESULTS OF THE EVALUATION, AND VERIFY THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MPAs IN ORDER TO KEEP THE AREAS CLOSED IN THE FUTURE.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: SUGGEST TO THE COUNCIL THAT MPAs BE DESIGNATED AS NOFISHING.
MOTION FAILS (5 IN FAVOR 6 OPPOSED)

MOTION: AP REQUESTS AN ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS OF EXISTING REGULATIONS (4-MONTH CLOSURE ON GROUPER,
LONGLINE CLOSURE, SMZs, SNOWY GROUPER REBUILDING PLAN, EXISTING MPAs, AND OTHERS AS APPROPRIATE) ON THE INCIDENTAL TAKE OF SPECKLED HIND AND WARSAW GROUPER
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL THAT THEY REQUEST THAT THE SEFSC CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
APPROVED BY AP
3
Snapper Grouper Amendment 18B (golden tilefish)

The AP discussed actions currently included in Amendment 18B and made the motions below. The amendment will be approved for submission to the Secretary of Commerce at the Council’s upcoming June meeting in Orlando.

MOTION: THE AP SUPPORTS THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED ALTERANTIVE UNDER ACTION 1 TO ESTABLISH A LONGLINE ENDORSEMENT

MOTION: SUPPORT THE ORIGINAL ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDED BY THE TILEFISH WORKGROUP FOR ACTION 2:
Sub-alternative 2a. To receive a golden tilefish longline endorsement, the individual must have a total of 2,000 pounds gw golden tilefish caught (with longline gear) between 2006 and 2008.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: SUPPORT THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED UNDER ACTION 3 (ESTABLISH AN APPEALS PROCESS)
Alternative 2 (Preferred). A period of 90 days will be set aside to accept appeals to the golden tilefish endorsement program starting on the effective date of the final rule. The Regional Administrator (RA) will review, evaluate, and render final decisions on appeals. Hardship arguments will not be considered. The RA will determine the outcome of
appeals based on NMFS’ logbooks. If NMFS’ logbooks are not available, the RA may use state landings records. Appellants must submit NMFS' logbooks or state landings records to support their appeal.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: AP SUPPORTS THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED UNDER ACTION 4
(ALLOCATION OF ACL BETWEEN GEAR GROUPS)
Alternative 2 (Preferred). Allocate the golden tilefish commercial ACL as follows:
75% to the longline sector and 25% to the hook and line sector (currently would be 405,971 pounds gw to longlines and 135,324 pounds gw to hook and line).
APPROVED BY AP
4

MOTION: AP SUPPORTS THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED UNDER ACTION 5
(TRANSFERABILITY OF ENDORSEMENT).
Alternative 2 (Preferred). A valid (not expired) golden tilefish endorsement or a renewable (expired but renewable) golden tilefish endorsement can be transferred between any two individuals or entities that hold, or simultaneously obtain a South Atlantic Unlimited Snapper Grouper Permit. Endorsements would be transferable, independently from the South Atlantic Unlimited Snapper Grouper Permit. Landings of golden tilefish using the golden tilefish longline endorsement would be associated with
the South Atlantic Unlimited Snapper Grouper Permit to which the endorsement is linked at the time the landings take place.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: SUPPORT THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED UNDER ACTION 8:
Alternative 4 (Preferred). Establish trip limits of 500 pounds gw for the golden tilefish component of the snapper grouper fishery for commercial fishermen who do not receive a longline endorsement. Vessels with longline endorsements are not eligible to fish for this trip limit.
APPROVED BY AP

Snapper Grouper AP Chair and Vice-Chair Election
The AP made the following motions pertaining to the election of a new Chair and Vice-Chair and the protocol regarding attendance of AP representatives at Council meetings:

MOTION: NOMINATE ROBERT JOHNSON FOR AP CHAIR
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: NOMINATE JIM ATACK FOR VICE-CHAIR
APPROVED BY AP
5

MOTION: LIMIT TERM FOR CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO 2 YEARS (4 MEETINGS)
APPROVED BY AP

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE COUNCIL COVER TRAVEL EXPENSES (AND
POSSIBLY OFFER ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION) FOR ONE AP MEMBER TO
REPRESENT THE AP AT COUNCIL MEETINGS

MOTION: REQUEST THAT A COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE AP ATTEND COUNCIL MEETINGS
MOTION WITHDRAWN

Other Business
MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER INCREASING THE GAG/BLACK GROUPER BAG LIMIT FROM 1 TO 2 AND THE AGGREGATE GROUPER
LIMIT FROM 3 TO 4 (2 GAG AND/OR 2 BLACK GROUPER).
APPROVED BY AP (8 IN FAVOR, 2 OPPOSED)

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER DISALLOWING RETENTION OF THE BAG LIMIT WHILE ON A COMMERCIAL SNAPPER GROUPER TRIP
MOTION FAILS (4 IN FAVOR, 10 OPPOSED)

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER RELAXING THE COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL RED PORGY LIMITS AND ADDING ANOTHER 120 HEAD TO THE COMMERCIAL LIMIT (240 HEAD PER TRIP). ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE RECREATIONAL BAG LIMIT BE INCREASED FROM 3 TO 4.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER CHANGING THE ALLOCATION OF THE GOLDEN TILEFISH ACL TO 90% COMMERCIAL AND 10% RECREATIONAL.
APPROVED BY AP (7 IN FAVOR, 3 OPPOSED)

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER INCREASING THE MINIMUM SIZE LIMIT OF GRAY TRIGGERFISH AND HOGFISH TO 14 INCHES
APPROVED BY AP
6
MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER ADJUSTING THE BSB RECREATIONAL FISHING YEAR TO NOVEMBER 1 TO OCTOBER 31.
MOTION WITHDRAWN

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL REQUIRE A FEDERAL
RECREATIONAL SNAPPER GROUPER PERMIT (SIMILAR TO THE HMS PERMIT) AND MAKE IT AN ANNUAL PERMIT THAT HAS TO BE RENEWED.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER A RESTRUCTURING OF THE SNAPPER GROUPER FISHERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DONE IN 1998
(AMENDMENT 8).
MOTION WITHDRAWN

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER TAKING ACTION TO “CLEAN UP” THE SNAPPER GROUPER FISHERY OF LATENT PERMITS, SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS DONE IN 1998 BUT USING THE CONTROL DATE OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 AND USING THE SAME POUNDAGE QUALIFIERS.
APPROVED BY AP (2 OPPOSED)_________________Captain Dave Tilley
SaltwaterCentral.Com
Carolina Beach, NC
910-264-3973

Since these are CONSIDERATIONS that were approved, when should we know if they're made into official regulations or not?
MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER INCREASING THE GAG/BLACK GROUPER BAG LIMIT FROM 1 TO 2 AND THE AGGREGATE GROUPER LIMIT FROM 3 TO 4 (2 GAG AND/OR 2 BLACK GROUPER).
APPROVED BY AP (8 IN FAVOR, 2 OPPOSED)

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE RECREATIONAL BAG LIMIT BE INCREASED FROM 3 TO 4.
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER INCREASING THE MINIMUM SIZE LIMIT OF GRAY TRIGGERFISH AND HOGFISH TO 14 INCHES
APPROVED BY AP

MOTION: RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL REQUIRE A FEDERAL
RECREATIONAL SNAPPER GROUPER PERMIT (SIMILAR TO THE HMS PERMIT) AND MAKE IT AN ANNUAL PERMIT THAT HAS TO BE RENEWED.
APPROVED BY AP

Only problem is, when they raise the limit, the season gets shorten...
Still have the same TAC.
Gulf coast snapper season is only 40 to 45 days long.
We need higher TAC's (Total Allowable Catches)
Grouper TAC's need to go up some % wise every year.
Inactive commercial snapper grouper permits need to be frozen &
bought back to protect the guys participating in it now.
As the TAC goes up they should let frozen permits re-enter as supply goes up.
Sea Bass TAC needs to double, Cause its way off.
Every move SAFMC makes hurts us all one way or the other.
Its going to take me years to catch up & become productive like I use to be.

Joined: Jan 11, 2005Posts: 3902Location: 212 Miles too far to the West

Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 9:30 am Post subject:

hblac wrote:

What is a VMS that was referred to early in the report?

I think it stands for vessel monitoring system. It is Big Brother coming on board and tracking your position. In some cases it is a video monitoring system so they can see your bycatch

Once the rec permit is in place they will require all permit holders to either have an onboard observer or a VMS aboard. This initial stop in only requiring in an MPA is to hide their true intent of having every rec be monitored like a criminal._________________Squid Row II - 23 Shamrock Inboard, 351 W Indmar, 1:1 Velvet Drive

What everyone has been dreading. This is bullshit!! I can tell you right now that 90% will avoid the permit so they don't have to get the VMS. It will make everyone a criminal.
VMS is a satellite-based vessel-monitoring program._________________\" TinaLouise \"

It is a way to push all the recs out of fishing for these species who is going to be able to afford it when they are not selling these fish. I will say it again total Bullshit!!

• The cost of purchasing a type-approved VMS unit and having the unit installed by a qualified marine electrician ranges from $3,495.00 (Boatracs and Faria units) to $3,800.00 (Thrane and Thrane unit).
• Basic annual VMS communication service fees are $480.00 for the Thrane and Thrane unit, $540 for the Faria unit, and $660.00 for the Boatracs unit. These prices exclude email messaging fees._________________\" TinaLouise \"

I have wondered if we could get enough pro fishing officials in office
some of these rules could be reversed or modified?

I thank all the people that have posted information about our elected officials and what side of the fence they are on. Hopefully
my wife,children, and myself will do our part at election time to help our fishing future.

We have a chance to stop the VMS scheme IF we offer a better solution. The VMS is intended to keep us out of MPAs. Please consider supporting this SOLUTION by submitting public comments and send them to everyone else you can, including your elected public servants.

Require all MPAs to be offset with equal areas of new Artificial Reefs and monitor MPAs with data collection towers that include surveillance cameras.

This would limit the size and number of MPAs while protecting them without forcing us to buy expensive and intrusive monitoring equipment. It would also be a way to increase TACs by increasing the bio-mass our South Atlantic can support by increasing the amount of food and habitat available. We should look at ways to enhance our resources rather than restricting our access to them.

Lets just put it out on the table here. This is simply Government run a muck creating more bureaucratic BS to force us to stop fishing for the species they want and controlling certain areas of the fisheries. I have been writing letters making phone calls and sending e-mails for the past 20 years. Mostly on deaf ears with no response. Our representatives really do not care because it does not effect them or the areas they represent. While I agree that they should replace areas removed from fishing to areas of new bottom structure. I cannot for the life of me see how surveillance cameras and data collection towers will help in any way shape or form. Hell we have NOAA buoys that have been down for over a year that they cant even repair. I can see it now Data or Cameras down no fishing till we fix them. Three years later they are not fixed. Lets be realistic here. This is getting way out of hand and we need to vote the non responsive elected officials out of office period. That is the only way change will be made. How can you make changes to NOAA when there is zero oversight or zero accountability.

I want anyone including NOAA to tell me how many boats are going to comply with the VMS? Look at the cost and tell me who is going to comply. Like I said before in another thread I hope they have a army to enforce it. And who is paying for that army. US !! BS

ChrisMcCaffity wrote:

We have a chance to stop the VMS scheme IF we offer a better solution. The VMS is intended to keep us out of MPAs. Please consider supporting this SOLUTION by submitting public comments and send them to everyone else you can, including your elected public servants.

Require all MPAs to be offset with equal areas of new Artificial Reefs and monitor MPAs with data collection towers that include surveillance cameras.

This would limit the size and number of MPAs while protecting them without forcing us to buy expensive and intrusive monitoring equipment. It would also be a way to increase TACs by increasing the bio-mass our South Atlantic can support by increasing the amount of food and habitat available. We should look at ways to enhance our resources rather than restricting our access to them.

MPAs are coming and VMS will be the enforcement method if we do not offer a better solution. The recreational reef fish permit is coming and WILL be set up in the most corrupt and incompetent way possible if we do nothing but say no. We need to look at the big picture and offer positive solutions that work. The MPAs with data collection towers and a reef fish data collection permit could be good for our fisheries IF they are set up properly. The surveillance video could be transmitted on the web for all to see. This would also allow fishermen to see the weather offshore in real time. Commercial and recreational fishermen should work with somebody like Capt. Dave that can write a program that would allow fishermen to report their catch. He could also manage the video feed. Local captains could fix broken cameras. I would much rather see the fees we pay go to a private business or individuals than some government bureaucracy. We need to demand that money allocated to data collection at NMFS be used to build the platforms and allow private businesses that are approved by a 2/3 majority of permit holders to run them. The money being used to force catch shares on us rather than collecting data could build and outfit all the platforms we need.

We also need to encourage everyone we can to vote for politicians that support our freedom to fish and eat them.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum